A N MOHAMMED IBRAHIM Vs. SHAHIDUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the judgment in c. A. No. 99 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, fast track Court, No. 2, Salem which had arisen out of the Judgment in C. C. No. 393 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial magistrate, No. 3, Salem .

(2.) THE complainant has preferred a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P. C. against the accused for an 0ffence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to "the Act" ).

(3.) P. W. 1 is the Manager of Bank of Madura, Shevapet Branch, who would depose that Ex P2 impugned cheque was forwarded by the Indian Bank for collection and that the same was returned with an endorsement that there is no sufficient fund in the account of the drawer of the cheque and that once again the said cheque was forwarded to his bank on 27. 1. 1999 for collection. Even for the second time, the said cheque was returned for the same reason. Ex p1 is the returned memo along with Ex P2 dishonoured cheque. Ex P3 is the statement of account for the account maintained by the accused. 5b. P. W. 2 is the Manager of the Indian Bank. He would admit that Ex P1 cheque was presented in the bank on 27. 1. 1999 for realisation. But the impugned cheque Ex P2 was dishonoured on the ground that there was no sufficient fund in the account of the drawer. 5c. P. W. 3 is the power of attorney for the Complainant shahidunnisa, the husband of the complainant. He would admit that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- from the complainant and in order to discharge the said loan amount, the accused had drawn Ex P2 impugned cheque in favour of the complainant. A notice was issued under the original of Ex P6 by the complainant to the accused. Ex P7 is the reply notice. The complainant had sent another notice under the original of Exp8 which was replied by the accused under Ex P9 dated 19. 3. 1999.